From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
dxf writes:
>On 7/05/2024 3:58 am, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> I assume you mean <<# and #>>. If you use standard code, you do not
>> use <<# nor #>>, and the code works as specified in the standard. In
>> the example above, it's the standard word <# (inside the +COMMA) that
>> adversely affects the usage of the HOLD buffer stack.
>
>And it's in support of this concept of a HOLD buffer stack (that doesn't
>exist in Standard Forth or any other AFAIK) that Gforth won't provide (.)
>et al that's been present on virtually all desktop forths?
It certainly is a reason why "(.)" with the meaning you seem have in
mind is not a factor of "." in Gforth.
>ISTM Gforth has a choice to make. It can do it its own thing - or it can
>adopt what has been common practice. For it's clear that when there's no
>common practice, nor moves towards it, there can't be a Standard.
According to you it is common practice already, and I think someone
has also claimed that words like (.) are used often, not that I have
missed them. If it is common practice, and you want to see it
standardized, make a proposal; documenting the common practice in
systems and programs would be useful to support such a proposal.
I see that in SwiftForth 4.0.0-RC87 there are the following number of
uses:
6 (.)
3 (U.)
3 (D.)
3 (DU.)
0 (U.R)
4 #S
10 #>
10 <#
Not defined: (.R) (D.R) (DU.R)
Mostly indepenently of this, I find figForth's factoring of .-related
words (inherited by Gforth) more elegant than the SwiftForth ones:
fig-Forth (reformatted to be more comparable to SwiftForth):
: D.R
>R SWAP OVER DABS <# #S SIGN #>
R> OVER - SPACES TYPE ;
: D. 0 D.R SPACE ;
: .R >R S->D R> D.R ;
: . S->D D. ;
SwiftForth:
: (D.) ( d -- addr len ) TUCK DABS <# #S ROT SIGN #> ;
: (.) ( n -- addr len ) S>D (D.) ;
: D. ( d -- ) (D.) TYPE SPACE ;
: . ( n -- ) (.) TYPE SPACE ;
: D.R ( d n -- ) >R (D.) R> OVER - SPACES TYPE ;
: .R ( n n -- ) >R (.) R> OVER - SPACES TYPE ;
In the fig-Forth variant you could factor out (D.), but it would be
used only once. Likewise, with a fig-Forth-like factoring, the usage
numbers for the (.)-like words would be somewhat lower.
BTW, wouldn't you recommend that Gforth should do its own thing? At
least that's how I read many of your messages over the years.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
